If the nation is going to maintain its faith and confidence in the 'least democratic branch,' then justices need to do their best every day to keep their minds open.

Indeed, why should justices be the only ones who have to keep their opinions (except the written kind) to themselves? Why shouldn’t they just, you know, let it rip? Wouldn’t it be refreshing — for them and for us? After all, the justices, no less than anyone else, have strongly held views about the political parties, the economy, the president’s performance, the war in Afghanistan, you name it. In the name of transparency, in the spirit of the First Amendment, shouldn’t we welcome it when justices make their feelings known — at least just a little bit?

It’s of course a ludicrous suggestion. But at a time when certain justices are speaking a bit more freely — or loosely — than we might expect them to, it’s worth clarifying why we think the idea is ludicrous.

While we no longer believe that justices are “black-robed gods,” as they were routinely described until the 1930s, we do expect them to perform a feat that is, on a certain level, superhuman. We believe justices should be able to perceive their own biases, confront their own prejudices and wrestle them down. Subdue them. Refuse to be governed by them.

This is the “judicial temperament,” as it’s known, and Lord knows it can’t come easily. It has got to be a mighty struggle to approach a case in a truly open-minded way. It has got to be a battle not to start with the outcome and then devise a way to achieve it. These things are hard — too hard, sometimes, for some of the justices. But they’ve got to keep trying. If the nation is going to maintain its faith and confidence in the “least democratic branch,” we need to believe that the justices are doing their best every day to keep their minds open.